Yes, today's "liberals" are libertines. They are only liberal about disobeying the Lord. Everything else, they hate. (For example, anything that constitutes obeying the Lord fills them with self-righteous indignation and offense. Who is the Lord to tell them what to do? Remind you of anyone? Yeah. The Pharaoh of Egypt: "Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice?" And Pharaoh's carcass lies in the bottom of the Red Sea.)
41 comments
the Lord fills them with self-righteous indignation and offense.
I refuse to grovel before self proclaimed "Lords"
Who is the Lord to tell them what to do?
Indeed.
Of course, all conservatives feed the hungry, free the captives, give all they have to the poor, fight oppression, seek after justice and righteousness and send the rich away empty. Or are they just as "liberal" about disobeying the Lord?
First off, there is no archaeological evidence for the events described in Exodus having actually occurred. Historians' consensus is that the story was made up to give the Hebrews a birthright to Israel. So your comparison between liberals and Pharaoh doesn't hold water, if you'll pardon the pun.
Second, we liberals generally don't object to allowing Christians to follow their own religious laws; rather we don't want them implemented into a government. Theocracy simply doesn't work. If you need proof of this, spend some time in Iran. The government should not be forcing its religion on people. How exactly can you support that and at the same time claim to favor "small government," exactly? I've wondered how republicans deal with that particular bit of cognitive dissonance for years. (To be fair, some, like that asshole Santorum, have the consistency to at least admit that they aren't in favor of small government. He publicly admitted that freedom is bad when it's the freedom to disobey God. Perhaps the rest of you guys should listen to him?)
In conclusion: we don't hate your religion, we hate the way you try to force it on everyone, including those who don't consent to Christian dominion over the US government.
ok, perhaps i'm missing some subtle translation-based flavor.
for me, a libertine is a person who considers their love life as free. you know, like a free thinker mixed with a poly or a swinger (depends on the definition), and even then the parallel isn't exact.
here, it seems libertine is equal to a mix between a free thinker and an antifascist...
can i get a yank' to clear up the meaning?
"Who is the LORD, that I should obey his voice?"
What voice? YOU? Don't make me laugh.
"I'd rather be a hammer than a nail,El Condor Pasa
If your god wants to punish me for disobeying his commands, then let him strike me down himself. Don't bring the government, a secular creation of men, into it - if god's so powerful, can't he do his own dirty work?
@\m/>_<\m/: I'm not a yank either, but...
Yes, libertine pretty much means what you suggested, a kind of intellectual cad or rake (I think "free love" is the phrase you were looking for btw). Really, it's a person who disregards conventional standards of propriety; whether through sex or another medium such as drugs, art or simple disrespect to authority, they qualify as a libertine. At least two films have been titled The Libertine : a French comedy biopic of Diderot (which I heartily recommend), and the Johnny Depp biopic of the Earl of Rochester John Wilmot. Both of these guys were both brilliant subversive writers and notorious philanderers, so they're good examples of the way the word is becoming more specific in its meaning. The next Oscar Wilde biopic will surely be called...
I suspect April thought it was a very clever pun, suggesting that all "dem libruls" are evil sodomite smart alecs who need a good talking to and to be sat in the corner, at which point they will finally submit and do what teacher says. Don't forget though: the average RR poster has a much worse grasp
Apparently apriles continues to drool, lost in a delirium of gnashing vengefulness and puerile biblical beardyness. We all know the so-called Lord is a dribbling fruitbat, so why obey it? Or is apriles devoid of the capacity for reason.
Yeah sure, the liberals are all about control. With their free market that adheres to science, with their social liberalism of letting people do what they want, with their support of religious freedom even if that community isn't popular, with their support of women's right to determine their own lifes. I guees liberals are against freedom if freedom is slavery.
And no, apriles, we don't give a damn what you do for your religion with yourself, as long as you don't do it to your wife/husband, child(ren), relative or neighbour.
There is no record of any Pharaoh drowning in the Red Sea. There is no archaeological record of the exodus.
There us a record that says not to judge others, which is exactly what apriles is doing, so he/she/it is damned to the lake of fire.
But more to the point, an argument based on such a wide-sweeping generalisation is nothing more than shit.
"They are only liberal about disobeying the Lord."
The Lord doesn't pay my bills or sign my paychecks, or carry a badge so I don't have to obey him.
Hate everything else? That's funny, I couldn't have sworn we weren't the ones wanting every country outside the US bombed off the planet, and constantly trying to censor books and TV.
I'd also like to echo the "which Pharaoh?" question. I studied Ancient Egypt as a hobby a few years back, and never heard of a Pharaoh drowning in the Red Sea.
"Who is the Lord to tell them what to do?"
Since the lord doesn't exist, he can't tell me to do anything.
Who are you to tell me what to do?
You remind me of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Ronald Reagan, George Bush etc.
Didn't the bible say that the Lord hardened the Pharaoh's heart? You know, violating that free will thing that Christians love to say we have so much? So why doesn't God want me to believe in him? If he wanted me to worship him, all he's got to do is show me that he exists and that he's worthy of worship. But as far as disobeying him, let him tell me what to do, not his crazed followers who can't even all agree on what he wants.
Who disobeys the Lord? Would we have a choice even if we wanted to? I think apriles means disobeying the Bible. There's a big difference between disobeying the Lord (who never actually seems to appear) and disobeying a 3,500 year old book by a bunch of anonymous Arabs that apriles thinks tells us what the Lord wants us to do.
Um, no. Being a libertine means you love a great number and variety of things, including religious art, which makes a delish background for ribaldry.
But god purposely hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he wouldn't cave to Moses. More than once he was ready to give in and let the Israelites go.
Instead god stripped him of his free will so he could test Moses or make some kind of point or just give Moses some kind of strawman villain to fight or because he's just a massive twat, I don't know.
The point is the only reason the Pharaoh didn't listen to Moses is because GOD MADE HIM NOT LISTEN.
So basically, we're liberal about everything until it infringes on our liberties.
That's...kinda the definition. And for the record, we could care less what you worship and how, it's when you force us, by way of captive audience, legislation or both that we take umbrage.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
